Of course anyone can try to build bridges, to a large extent the flags did exactly that despite the best efforts of a few. That's not the argument. If a trust is claiming to represent supporters and wanting discussion, then the onus is firmly with them to do that. Failing to do that leaves them guilty of some aspects they criticise the Allams for. Who ever started it, abusing the Allams in public is no different to them abusing fans. These things work both ways. If it's wrong, it's wrong, it can't be acceptable one way. If it's "so be it" for one, it has to be for both, which then kills part of the reason for complaint. As for the allegation of "knocking" posters, it's simply not the case. Their comments and actions may well be commented on, and perhaps even criticised, but we're all fair game for that. Pointing out where improvements could be made is actually a positive, it just needs some to lose this sensitive victim attitude, consider what's being said as it is meant, which is constructive rather than destructive.
This thread reached stalemate about 4 pages back. The argument about discussion has, er curtailed the discussion. Lock the thread FFS
I'm more than happy to take on board any suggestions, or criticisms and to answer questions about what the trust is doing and why it is doing it. But if you have any questions for a trust member about something posted on his private Twitter account sixteen months ago (eight months before the trust was formed), then you should ask him directly. Why would you mess about with a third party, when you can simply ask him directly?
They only seem keen to post their news releases on here, and not actually engage with us, nor to answer questions about them. Really is a shame. After being stuck in last night, and forced to listen to the radio online, although thank god for Gentleman Jim, quite a refreshing commentator to be honest, can anyone tell me why we have to pay to listen to the awful RH during games? Is it because Tiger Player have some agreement, or is it just some regional constraint put on RH (although given Fulham put theirs on the internet I can't see this)? Asking the club why they don't just put it on the site in the same way as Fulham do would be good. Tiger Player still gets video exclusives etc.
Because the questions I asked are important to a lot more than just me. Because I had questions for the committee. Because it was said that we could put questions to the committee using this forum. Because my questions about the hip flask are to the chairman of your trust. Because a twitter account is not private. Because I can't be arsed with the inevitable abuse I'd get from his cronies on twitter. Because he smoothly went from CTWD to leading the trust. A trust which is meant to be representative of the fans. Not just some fans, the fans. Honestly, forget it. I know you don't get it. You see the committee in a different light to a lot of other people, I get that. You see anyone questioning them as unreasonable and there's little doubt there will be no changes to the current set up or mentality, and I can't arsed wasting my time challenging something that sees itself as unchallengeable. I guess asking for each committee member to make a statement on the owners of the club would be dangerous for you. Such a crying shame and a wasted opportunity for all fans.
A thinly veiled reference to me, it would seem, if by flags you mean the banners that were donated by the supporters (one of which, the first, I donated to). I don't recall anyone making any effort, other than discussion on here (something I thought you are an advocate of, but never-mind) to impede the banner project; views were offered and usually discounted in the same style you criticise others for. But lets not go there again, hey, Dutch, as you do seem to be creative in hindsight. I don't totally disagree with this and I have stated that in the past, but I do believe it is useful to keep some perspective in these things. The club used its professional platform and access to local, national and international media to denigrate, abuse and roundly lie in their dealings with their customers, the supporters. HCST used the same channels to offer balanced and well worded criticism, constructive comment and home truths, as a part-time volunteer organisation. It is true that some members (and officials) of the HCST may have disparaged the owners of Hull City AFC through various strands of social media, but that was on a personal basis and, in my recollection, it was always based on the truth as they saw it and I recall it. There is a difference, whether you like it or not; folk will reap what they sow. Over the last few months there has been a regular incidence of you focussing on certain posters, one in the main, OLM. It has been commented on by a decent cross-section of posters who have found it tedious and unnecessary; sometimes it has been said that it detracts from the good stuff you speak on and I believe they have a point. I got on your heels a while back and you ended up saying something like, ' will that now stop you stalking me?', "sensitive victim attitude"?? I wasn't stalking you I was using the same technique as you on OLM, but you just don't see it, no matter who offers you their opinion. I don't expect you to agree, it's just my opinion in this discussion you asked for - a clearing of the air. Constructive criticism can be very good if applied correctly, but, unfortunately, it can often come across as a platform for targeted criticism which is destructive to individuals and yours has at times. I think it's best to remember that things can only go so far on this board as it is, after all, an anonymous footy board with fairly relaxed moderation and a broad church of users. I think your aims and intentions are admirable, but your expectations of this board stretch it's purpose and reality.
Sorry. Chilton's Hundreds, but I think you're wrong. It's an on-going discussion by those who wish to be involved; some might leave it and some might join in, it's direction may change and it's tone might vary, but progressing it just might give us all something new to think about. The bottom dollar, as they say, is that if it bores you (as I can't see how it offends you) you simply shouldn't read it - move table or stand somewhere else as you would in a bar. If you really want to curtail discussion then do what you say and lock the thread, but do it after you put your swastika armband on.
The Chairman was voted in with the knowledge of 'Flaskgate' on the table, so why would another vote be necessary, as there have been no recurrences?
To give your claims substance, do it, use Twitter and let's see what happens; it's far more positive than presuming the outcome and using that presumption as a stick in your argument. I don't understand what that has to do with the point you are arguing? You seem to using random arguments to ferment a bigger one. The Trust is representative of the fans who are it's members - do you honestly, realistically expect that any group could claim to be representative of everyone? I think most level-headed, reasonable folk would understand the reasonable and generic use of representation; it really is a shallow point to progress on.
So why don't you do something about it, join the trust, (maybe you have already), contact the trust direct (maybe you have already), form your own supporters group, (maybe you have already) because whining like a bitch constantly on a faceless forum isn't really achieving anything is it?
Exactly, the usual suspects cluttering the thread with their whining. They should do something about it if they disagree with the trust and how it run, otherwise they should just leave it cos they're just beginning to look like argumentative idiots
I suspect it's a rights issue/agreement. The BBC may have entered into an agreement to secure rights to commentate on Football League games in return for providing those to all the clubs' commercial 'Players' - Tiger Player etc etc. I wouldn't have thought the BBC made money out of it, but that might be worth a Freedom of Information question. It is, though, intensely annoying if you pay the licence fee, and might be worth raising with an MP given that the BBC is under almost constant attack. I think it's wrong. Why should I be penalised from listening as part of my licence fee payment simply because I don't live in the BBC Humberside reception area? So Hull City and other clubs who have those commentaries on their 'Players' may be making a small amount from it. Fulham might be in a special position as there are so many London clubs, and no dedicated BBC local radio station that will always be carrying BBC commentary. BBC London or whatever it is will be spread thinly. But I'm guessing. The Gentleman Jim commentary was excellent, I agree. I suspect Hull City Tigers -- or whatever the commercial arm calls itself -- wouldn't agree to anything similar because it would undermine the paid-for appeal of Tigers Player.
